Re: XyWrite orphaned

[Eric Van Tassel 101233.342@xxxxxxxx]

On 27-10, Leslie Bialler wrote (in small part)
"... much of the response, including mine, has been on the "sure, why not"
side of the fence ...
In short, Ken has made what I for one consider to be a sensible and
(pending on the price he eventually decides to charge) generous offer ..."

I agree, and I would like to be kept in the loop as pricing and other
details are worked out.

Nevertheless, thinking particularly about the user community I'm associated
with as a freelance editor, I can hardly bear the thought of a world
without XyWrite. But, although the arrangement that Ken Frank has
described is (I agree) both sensible and helpful, it does seem to signal in
some sense the beginning of the end for this evolutionary line unless
something radical is done.

Exactly six months ago I asked whether there should be some more radical
action by that segment of the user community that most needs the features
that make XyWrite what it is. I'm not enough of an entrepreneur to see how
this would work in detail, but what I have in mind is a consortium of
newspapers and book publishers who would buy the software (and the XyWrite
name, in all its unpronounceable-by-outsiders glory) from TTG, and
establish a permanent programming and tech support team (located, for
instance, in premises provided -- inexpensively but not charitably -- at
[say] Princeton or Columbia or Yale) to keep up with needed fixes and to
improve the product at an evolutionary pace.

The objective would be for this programming-and-tech-fixing team to
maintain and improve the software not primarily for profit, but not as a
charitable enterprise either. It comes down to employing people, and
valuing their skills and enthusiasm, so the team I have in mind shouldn't
be cheap -- it should comprise the most talented and best-suited people, at
the wages they deserve. And because the product is something that its
users (whether they are profit-making or not) *need*, they should be
willing to pay just what it takes to keep the product going and make it
better. Perhaps they can even be asked to pay differentially depending on
their own status: shouldn't a large newspaper group be prepared to pay
quite a bit more for the software than a barely surviving university press,
which in turn should pay a *little* more than someone like me, a nearly
net-loss-making freelance (who is a more exacting copyeditor than is
justified by the going university-press rate, and who in his spare time
writes two articles out of love for every one he gets paid for)?

Perhaps Nota Bene could be involved in some way? NB is (I presume) a
purely capitalist enterprise, but it serves (I would imagine) a customer
base heavily weighted towards impure capitalists like academics and
researchers: wouldn't NB welcome some form of collaboration with a
programming team whose services can, if I'm right, work out less expensive
than if they had worked for a purely profit-oriented employer?

But there's no point in sweating the small stuff unless the principle is
agreed. ny ideas? Any interest?

Cheers
Eric Van Tassel

PS: Ken Frank, if you're still reading, do count me in. Anyway.